A newly announced federal investigation is raising questions about how presidential pardons were processed and signed in the final weeks of the previous administration. Ed Martin, recently appointed pardon attorney at the Department of Justice and head of the DOJ’s Weaponization Working Group, revealed this week that he is leading a formal probe into the possible misuse of the presidential autopen — a mechanical device used to replicate the president’s signature.

Though Martin only officially took over his current role last week, he confirmed in a recent interview that the inquiry had been underway for several weeks, beginning while he was still serving as interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia.

The investigation focuses on whether the autopen was used inappropriately to sign pardons and other official documents during a period when the president may not have been fully aware or directly involved in the decision-making process.

Martin disclosed that his office has already spoken with several individuals connected to the case, including members of the president’s family and former White House officials. Additionally, a whistleblower has come forward with what Martin describes as “serious allegations” involving a small group of individuals who allegedly controlled access to the pardon process — and may have profited from it.

“I had a whistleblower in my office ten days ago,” Martin said during an interview with journalist Mark Halperin. “Senior Democrat, someone closely involved in the 2020 campaign, telling me there were three people at the center of this — gatekeepers who made the decisions. I can’t say yet what’s true, but it’s something we have to dig into.”

Martin named Ron Klain, former White House chief of staff; Anita Dunn, a longtime political adviser; and Robert Bauer, a legal advisor with past ties to the Obama administration, as the primary individuals allegedly involved. Later, he also mentioned Steve Ricchetti, a close presidential adviser, and the First Lady, Jill Biden, as figures who may have played a role.

The allegations suggest that key staff members may have been making decisions — including the use of the autopen to authorize pardons — while the president was away, indisposed, or unaware. A number of official documents appeared with the president’s signature during periods when he was known to be on vacation or otherwise not publicly active. This has raised questions about whether all executive actions were personally reviewed or approved.

These concerns are compounded by past reports suggesting that some aides may have taken on greater authority as the president’s cognitive health reportedly declined. One former aide claimed a top staffer was suspected of signing documents independently. A controversial January 2024 energy policy order, which the president allegedly said he had no memory of issuing, further fueled speculation about who was making final decisions in the West Wing.

Martin’s dual role as the nation’s chief pardon attorney and head of a DOJ working group investigating potential abuses of executive power puts him in a unique position to address the matter from both legal and procedural standpoints. “We’re not rushing to judgment,” he said. “But the integrity of the presidential pardon process must be preserved, and that means understanding exactly who was involved and why.”

In Congress, the development has sparked renewed interest among lawmakers. On Thursday, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee submitted formal requests to interview several former White House aides and President Biden’s physician, Dr. Kevin O’Connor. The Committee, led by Chairman James Comer, is seeking to determine whether the president’s fitness to serve was properly monitored and whether other individuals may have taken over executive responsibilities.

“The American people deserve to know who was making decisions and whether those decisions were made with full presidential awareness,” Comer said. “We’re exploring the possibility of new legislation to ensure greater oversight in cases where a president may be unable to fulfill their duties.”

While no charges have been filed and the investigation remains in its early stages, Martin confirmed that several individuals of interest have already retained legal counsel.

As the probe develops, both legal experts and political analysts are watching closely. At its heart, the investigation seeks to answer a fundamental question: Was the office of the presidency administered properly in its final phase, or did unelected staff wield more influence than the public realized?

For now, the Department of Justice continues to review the evidence, with Martin’s team working behind closed doors. The answers — and potential consequences — are yet to be determined.